LDD-derived parts

[Travis Cobbs]

Chris Dee asked me to bring up something that was brought to his attention by Magnus Forsburg.

Hello Chris,

I have seen a lot of parts extracted from LDD recently. Do/Should we have a policy on how to give credit to TLG on these parts?

Maybe all should have to have a History line like this:

0 HISTORY 20??-??-?? {LEGO Digital Designer} Original part shape
0 !HISTORY 20??-??-?? [UserName] File preparation for LDraw Parts Tracker

Do I dare publish this part, before it exists in any of LEGO's official sets?

/
Magnus

I agree that there should be something in the parts to indicate the origin of their base geometry. I would think that the same type of thing should be done with LEGO Universe-derived parts.

[Travis Cobbs]

According to Chris Dee, the following already shows up on LEGO Universe parts:

0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD {The LEGO Universe Team} Original part shape
0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD [UserName] File preparation for LDraw Parts Tracker

As far as I know, the above is a de facto standard, though; I don't think the LSC ever required it to be that way. I think both LEGO Universe-derived parts and LDD-derived parts should be treated the same.

[Allen Smith]

>

> Hello Chris,
>
> I have seen a lot of parts extracted from LDD
> recently. Do/Should we have a policy on how to
> give credit to TLG on these parts?
>
> Maybe all should have to have a History line like
> this:
>
> 0 HISTORY 20??-??-?? {LEGO Digital Designer}
> Original part shape
> 0 !HISTORY 20??-??-?? [UserName] File preparation
> for LDraw Parts Tracker
>
> Do I dare publish this part, before it exists in
> any of LEGO's official sets?
>
> /
> Magnus
>

Is the LSC being asked if (a) LDD-derived parts should have attribution in the history, or (b) if not-yet-real-but-probably-will-be parts can be submitted to the part tracker?

My answers would be (a)yes and (b)yes, but they should not be certified until the part physically exists.

In both cases, however, I am not sure why my opinion matters. I think the part tracker admins are more qualified to offer opinions on the subject.

Allen

[Travis Cobbs]

Please note, Allen, that only LSC members can post to the LSC forum, so if you need a response from someone else, you need to post in another forum. Having said that, Chris Dee (LDraw Parts Library Admin) responded (to me via email):

I am asking about (a), but not "if" they should have attribution in the history, but "how" that attribution should appear:
We use "0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD {The LEGO Universe Team} Original part shape" for LEGO Universe parts and would like the LSC to rule on the suggestion of
"0 HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD {LEGO Digital Designer} Original part shape" for LDD derived parts.

Your opinion (as a member of the LSC) matters because the LSC controls the Official Library Header Specification.

[Allen Smith]

Travis Cobbs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please note, Allen, that only LSC members can post
> to the LSC forum, so if you need a response from
> someone else, you need to post in another forum.

It's hard to know where to ask!


>

> I am asking about (a), but not "if" they should
> have attribution in the history, but "how" that
> attribution should appear:
> We use "0 !HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD {The LEGO Universe
> Team} Original part shape" for LEGO Universe parts
> and would like the LSC to rule on the suggestion
> of
> "0 HISTORY YYYY-MM-DD {LEGO Digital Designer}
> Original part shape" for LDD derived parts.
>
> Your opinion (as a member of the LSC) matters
> because the LSC controls the Official Library
> Header Specification.
>

I happily endorse what Chris suggests.

However, I still don't know why this needs the review of the LSC. The LDraw.org Official Library Header Specification does not spell out exactly what {RealName} values are permitted, which would imply that any RealName is permissible. For example, the string "The LEGO Universe Team" is nowhere to be found in the specification, although Chris attests it is currently in use. Presumably, "LEGO Digital Designer" will likewise not appear in the specification. Thus I am not sure why LSC approval is necessary here.

I ask all this because I would hate to see parts get bogged down on the Tracker because of the LSC. In this case, as long as the part is following the header specification, I think it's fine.

Allen

[Travis Cobbs]

Chris had another response:

The Header Spec does say this:

RealName is the author's real name.
UserName is the author's LDraw username.

Although it may not be obvious, the common phrase ("the author's") was intended to indicate that these two items are linked. So the only real name permitted is that which matches the LDraw username in the LDraw.org user registration, with a historical list of named exceptions for people who affirmed the CA but never signed up to LDraw.org and the special case of "The LEGO Universe Team". I'm happy to add "LEGO Digital Designer" if there are no concerns within the LSC.

Does anyone else on the LSC have an opinion?